Wall Street Journal article on presidential portraiture

[Sharon Knettell]

Originally Posted by Valentino Radman

It is the indescribable quality which transforms a paint covered surface into a genuine piece of art. One looks at it and just knows that it will mean something to a generation hundred of years from now, just like portraits of Raphael, Titian, Velazquez, Van Dyck, Thomas Lawrence, Ingres, Sargent, Zorn etc mean something to today's generation (well, to those who care about art and have developed a good taste).

You can feel it in the works of, say, Silverman, Whitaker, Dinnerstein and some (but not in too many) others.

There are maybe a few others, but I do think Valentino is right on. These are made to be icons of our government, they rarely can be transformative in the way say a Manet is. The content is completely dictated as well as the rather rigid parameters.

[Karin Wells]

I pretty much agree with Catesby Leigh

[Wayne McMichael]

Karin Wells, you have a poetic flare that I appreciate, and I agree. Ice Cream for everyone!

[Valentino Radman]

[QUOTE=Karin Wells]
Frankly I am blaming the clients in particular and the public in general for our sorry state of portraiture. They do not ask for

[Sharon Knettell]

Originally Posted by Valentino Radman

The taste of public in general (and art public in particular) can hardly
My bottom line would be - it is primarily up to the artists to raise the artistic standards of the contemporary art. Great artists of the past were great because they were not conforming to the lowest denominator.

Interestingly enough, I recently decided I would never again do a portrait from photos. I had a really beautiful well paid commission in front of me and I said no to photos, except to determine composition. The parents said were a little nervous, vis-a-vis the time element and the fact they lived an hour from me in Boston. Well the upshot is, that they have been bringing down their daughter every weekend for me to paint, they have become friends and they are really astounded at the difference between the photos and the painting. They have also said that they could not believe how much work goes into a painting. They and I have both learned something. They are not just making a random luxury purchase that means as little to them as buying a car.

This of course is not easy, I have caved before and done some from life, combos and some from photos. But I think the well prepared portrait artist should be able to execute a commission from life. he should have at the very least the craftsmanship and knowledge to do so. this is not the first important critic, whether you agree with him or not to have picked up on this practice in our profession and how it is making contemporary portraiture increasingly homogenized and bland.

I don't mean to make this about me, but referring to Valentino's assessment of the current state of official art it is the artist who should be in the drivers seat. He should be able to sell the concept and how he feels he can make the best possible work of art and prepared to lose it if the client wants just a hired brush. There are so many wonderful ideas lost from fear, our fear. There are wonderful possibilities in portraiture, even official ones. We have been skating and perhaps a little gutless.

This said, even the most masterful portraitist sometimes have a hard time with a portrait.

King George the Third by Gainsborough

[Valentino Radman]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

But I think the well prepared portrait artist should be able to execute a commission from life.

It goes without saying. He/she must be able to do that, otherwise he/she is not a portrait artist, he is (at best) just a renderer. The photos are necessary evil, but a painter should avoid delivering painted photos. Or, when such references are inevitable, [I]the painters /I] should avoid photographic look in their works.

I mentioned Burt Silverman. He really knows his trade and does it nicely. He sometimes paints from photographs, but you don't feel the photos in his portraits. In addition, Silverman's paintings are in tune with ouir time (they do not look like a 16th or 19th century work) and he has a unique artistic voice.
Majority of contemporary portrait renderers can not do better, but painstakingly copy the reference photos. The remind me on all those copysts in the Chinese sweatshops.
Is it art? No. Should they be regarded as artists? In my opinion, no.

I think that the paintings should have a unique feel, different from other media. It is not just wheather to pursue tight or loose style. There are numerous brilliant highly realistic portraits done before the advent of photography portrait. But they were genuine artists - they were gifted, they do their share of practice, developed high taste and acquired elite skills. And, yes, never stopped honing their craft.

That's why their artworks mean something to today's generation.

[Ant Carlos]

Originally Posted by Valentino Radman

You nailed it.
The taste of public in general (and art public in particular) can hardly be lower, thanks primarily to modernists' "everything goes" philosophy. Standards of quality are virtually nonexistent today, due to the same reasons.
Some might think I am exaggerating, but look at the 15th century Florence. In those times you couldn't get away with literally anything like today. The patrons were educated, true connossieurs which were fluent in Latin and Greek. They expected the highest quality works that could stand comparision with the finest examples of the art of Antique - and artists lived up to their expectations. That's why rennaissance happened there and not somewhere else.

I strayed off a little... In situation in which the art scene is today, I do not believe things could improve, if artists continue to deliver bland, unexciting, artless pieces of painting (not just portraits, any painting).
One can not hope the general public will became sophisticated all of a sudden. The other parts of the equation - gallery owners and critics - had very rarely (if ever) contributed in improving the art scene.

My botom line would be - it is primarily up to the artists to raise the artistic standards of the contemporary art. Great artists of the past were great because they were not conforming to the lowest denominator.

You can't imagine how worse the situation is here in Brazil. I blame the revolutionary "Week of Modern Art of 1922" as a cause of this long time disease. It was a happening where all the emergent artists who were doing something non-traditional could show their Art and prove that was the new way to go. As a consequence the meaning of Art in Brazil changed radically, and good painters of the past, like Almeida Junior, were totally forgotten. Then and still now what is "good Art" for most people is anything but academic or traditional.
Working for a change...

Ant